Manufacturing justice: On the top court, AI use observations

📌 Summary:

• Context: The Supreme Court set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders in an insolvency case after finding the NCLT had relied on fictitious AI-generated legal citations — a lapse the appellate tribunal overlooked
• Core argument: AI "hallucinations" in judicial decision-making are dangerous and human oversight is indispensable
• Striking analogy: the Court likened AI hallucinations to methyl isocyanate (the Bhopal 1984 gas) — "invisible, insidious, and catastrophic by the time anyone notices"
• Pattern: the latest in a 2026 series of interventions; on February 27 the same Bench (Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe) held that reliance on AI-fabricated case law is judicial "misconduct", not merely an error
• Principle: AI may be an assistive efficiency tool but can never replace independent human reasoning, judicial discretion or accountability; any judgment influenced by hallucinated AI material is "no decision in the eyes of law"
• Regulatory response: the draft "Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026" bar AI in adjudication, sentencing, bail eligibility and credibility assessment; the draft is open for public consultation
• Accountability: fabricated machine-generated judgments amount to professional misconduct for advocates and a serious lapse for judges; the Court directed the Bar Council of India to form a committee to frame norms and disciplinary action

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 Polity/Judiciary and GS3 S&T — governance and ethics of AI in public institutions, judicial accountability

📝 Prelims Facts:

• NCLT and NCLAT adjudicate insolvency matters under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)
• The Bench comprised Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe
• Draft "Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026" are under public consultation

🔑 Key Term: AI hallucination — confident but fabricated output (such as non-existent case citations) produced by an AI model.